Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
webshare-mcp

webshare-mcp

by jimmyallinai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

webshare_stats

Retrieve aggregated Webshare traffic statistics—total bandwidth, requests, success/failure counts, and countries used—to monitor proxy usage and diagnose request outcomes.

Instructions

查看聚合流量统计：总流量、请求数、成功与失败数、已用国家。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "webshare_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. '查看' implies a read-only operation and the metric list suggests a snapshot, but the description never states the aggregation window (all-time, current billing cycle, or rolling period), nor any auth expectations — a meaningful gap for a usage/quota stat that is normally time-bounded.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the resource and the returned metrics front-loaded. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, enumerating the returned fields in the description is exactly the right compensation. The only omission is the time scope of the aggregation, which an agent would want before trusting the numbers.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('查看聚合流量统计') and enumerates the metrics returned (total traffic, requests, success/failure counts, countries). An agent can tell this apart from siblings like webshare_profile or webshare_subscription, though it does so only implicitly since no sibling is named.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the metric list — an agent infers 'call this to check bandwidth consumption'. Acceptable for a zero-parameter tool with no close sibling, but it leaves the trigger conditions unstated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools